PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor fears the Carlos Tevez saga will not be resolved until January at the earliest.
The union chief was speaking to Sky Sports News after refusing to sanction the four-week fine the Premier League club have attempted to impose on the wantaway Argentine.
City have found Tevez guilty of misconduct following five breaches of his contract for refusing to resume his warm-up as a substitute in the UEFA Champions League defeat by Bayern Munich on 27th September.
Furious City boss Roberto Mancini said the striker was finished at the club after the match at the Allianz Arena and his former captain has trained in solitude after serving an initial suspension.
Mancini would no doubt prefer to sell Tevez, who has twice requested a transfer in the past year, and former employers Corinthians remain interested, but it is still to be seen if City are prepared to decrease a £45million asking price.
Commenting on suggestions the ex-Manchester United striker will not play again for City, Taylor said: "Carlos Tevez is in quite an isolated situation. But he is still a good player.
"It depends. When you say never in football, you have got to be careful because inside a week or so things can change.
"But at the moment it is not a good situation between him and the club. It is no use saying it is. But it may well take until January and the transfer window being opened for this situation to be resolved.
"But in the meantime, he is here in this country, he is a member of the PFA and he has got to be looked after accordingly."
City are understood to be furious with the PFA for refusing to agree to Tevez's four-week fine after claiming Taylor has been involved throughout the discussion process.
But Taylor does not believe the punishment is appropriate for the 27-year-old, who was initially accused by Mancini of refusing to play against Bayern which has seen the player consider legal action for defamation of character.
Taylor said: "There was a decision taken to charge Carlos. But, as I've said, the evidence doesn't show that he refused to play. He is adamant that he never refused to play.
"He is adamant, also, that he was never told he was going to come on to the pitch. But, nevertheless, it is a disciplinary issue. We understand that.
"We work with the Premier League and with the FA in trying to achieve suitable disciplinary sanctions.
"But a sanction of going beyond a two-weeks' fine is normal for a situation where there is gross misconduct and, rather than terminate the contract, they (the club) wish to keep the player, but with a heavy fine.
"This wasn't a case described by Manchester City as gross misconduct and from that point of view I just feel their mindset is still him initially refusing to play when that was never the case."